W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > June 2009

Re: data.gov.* memo

From: Michael Phythian <michael.phythian@email.dmu.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:52:44 +0100
Message-Id: <4A37F80C020000CE0000793A@orca.gw.dmu.ac.uk>
To: <KevinNovak@aia.org>,<josema@w3.org>
Cc: <daniel@citizencontact.com>,<Suzanne.Acar@ic.fbi.gov>, <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk>, <jonathan.gray@okfn.org>, <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
As a UK viewer might I add an issue that has arisen here with the
opening of e-data.

Local councils have traditionally charged a fee to do a land charge
search i.e. search the local history prior to a lawyer carrying out a
house sale/purchase. The private sector has undercut this by using
public records, especially electronic ones. However, not all the info is
available publicly nor electronically, so information can be missed.

So a house sale can go ahead with inaccurate data, which may have
problem in the future.

Perhaps then there is potentially the need to use an 'errors and
ommissions excepted' type of statement to prevent the intermediary
receiving legal attention as the result of a data corruption?

Mick

http://greatemancipator.com



>>> "Jose M. Alonso" <josema@w3.org> 16/06/09 5:42 PM >>>
Taking into account this is an international group and that we need to  
accommodate the various data.gov.* (emphasis on the asterisk)  
(prospective) realities out there, I agree with the original point  
made by Jonathan:

> I wonder if it would be appropriate to also stipulate that the
> copyright status and terms and conditions of re-use should be made
> explicit - so that it is clear what can (and/or can't) be done with
> the material?


Yes, and we might say that we as group believe it should be as open as  
possible to foster reuse, but... promoting the idea that it should be  
free is something that previously led us to long discussion when  
deciding what OGD definition to adopt...

If I got right what Suzanne mentioned, this general statement would be  
also applicable to data.gov (where there's already a policy stating it)

-- Jose


ps: Spanish constitution was published on the Web with an "all rights  
reserved" copyright clause, so we still have some homework to do  
around here... :(


El 16/06/2009, a las 17:16, Novak, Kevin escribió:
> Suzanne,
>
> Great points.
>
> Perhaps the watermarking item from last week’s DAS discussion is  
> something that we could aid with.
>
> Agree that the agencies are doing the review and risk assessments  
> before releasing. We should note the effort but go forward with the  
> understanding that where data.gov in the US context is concerned  
> that a review has occurred.
>
> Kevin
>
> Kevin Novak
> Vice President, Integrated Web Strategy and Technology
> The American Institute of Architects
> 1735 New York Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20006
>
> Voice:   202-626-7303
> Cell:       202-731-0037
> Twitter: @novakkevin
> Fax:        202-639-7606
> Email:    kevinnovak@aia.org
> Website: www.aia.org
>
> <image001.jpg>
> AIA NAMED BEST ASSOCIATIONS WEBSITE FOR THE 12th ANNUAL WEBBY AWARDS!
> America's Favorite Architecture Tops the Shortlist for International  
> Honor for the Web
>
> The American Institute of Architects is the voice of the  
> architectural profession and the resource for its members in service  
> to society.
>
>
> From: Acar, Suzanne [mailto:Suzanne.Acar@ic.fbi.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 10:08 AM
> To: Novak, Kevin; 'daniel@citizencontact.com';  
> 'jonathan.gray@okfn.org'
> Cc: 'josema@w3.org'; 'public-egov-ig@w3.org';
'John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk 
> '
> Subject: Re: data.gov.* memo
>
> I agree the issue is complex in general particulalrly for what you  
> describe. But isn't part of managing complexity about scoping the  
> challenge and organizing into smaller manageable pieces as an  
> attempt to simplify as a strategy? So, in the case of US Data.gov  
> we're looking at raw data made available for repurposing by any one  
> interterested 'out there'. This data in theory has already gone thru  
> internal screening by all parties inside the owning government  
> agency required to include their lawyers. There is another component  
> to data.gov which makes things more intertesting and that is the  
> feature of the government developed and government owned data tools  
> made available on data.gov. What are the implications > that may require mitigating? My apologies if my wording is ambiguous  
> - I'm obviously not good at this type of dialogue... But how else do  
> I learn if I don't try.. Thanks in advance for bearing with me.
>
> Cheers,
> Suzanne
>
> From: Novak, Kevin <KevinNovak@aia.org>
> To: Acar, Suzanne; daniel@citizencontact.com
<daniel@citizencontact.com 
> >; jonathan.gray@okfn.org <jonathan.gray@okfn.org>
> Cc: josema@w3.org <josema@w3.org>; public-egov-ig@w3.org
<public-egov-ig@w3.org 
> >;
John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk<John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk

> >
> Sent: Tue Jun 16 08:57:13 2009
> Subject: RE: data.gov.* memo
> All,
>
> It is a complex issue even for US government. Not so much for the  
> general agencies given Suzanne’s comments.
>
> The Library of Congress, Smithsonian, NEH, National Gallery of Art,  
> National Park Service and a few others have “collections” of  
> material that have been digitized and made available on the web.  
> Many resulting from agreements with trustees and custodians that  
> have donated the materials to the institutions for some level of  
> access. The challenge was and is ensuring that the materials are  
> rights protected and it is made clear that they do not fall under  
> the normal regulations. Negotiating these agreements is quite an  
> experience and always challenging when you don’t have a good policy  
> basis to start with. Although this isn’t specifically a “data” issue  
> under the current data.gov and UK efforts, it is indeed a growing  
> issue for agencies dealing with culturally significant materials  
> that aren’t necessarily government produced and the desire to have  
> the materials located on government websites.
>
> Kevin
>
> Kevin Novak
> Vice President, Integrated Web Strategy and Technology
> The American Institute of Architects
> 1735 New York Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20006
>
> Voice:   202-626-7303
> Cell:       202-731-0037
> Twitter: @novakkevin
> Fax:        202-639-7606
> Email:    kevinnovak@aia.org
> Website: www.aia.org
>
> <image001.jpg>
> AIA NAMED BEST ASSOCIATIONS WEBSITE FOR THE 12th ANNUAL WEBBY AWARDS!
> America's Favorite Architecture Tops the Shortlist for International  
> Honor for the Web
>
> The American Institute of Architects is the voice of the  
> architectural profession and the resource for its members in service  
> to society.
>
>
> From: Acar, Suzanne [mailto:Suzanne.Acar@ic.fbi.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:44 AM
> To: 'daniel@citizencontact.com'; 'jonathan.gray@okfn.org'
> Cc: 'josema@w3.org'; 'public-egov-ig@w3.org';
'John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk 
> '; Novak, Kevin
> Subject: Re: data.gov.* memo
>
> Very interesting, Daniel. Will take a closer look.
> Also, thank you Jonathan for the clarifiacation on your statement.
>
> Cheer
> Suzanne
>
> From: Daniel Bennett <daniel@citizencontact.com>
> To: Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray@okfn.org>
> Cc: Acar, Suzanne; josema@w3.org <josema@w3.org>;
public-egov-ig@w3.org 
>  <public-egov-ig@w3.org>;John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk
<John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk 
> >; kevinnovak@aia.org <kevinnovak@aia.org>
> Sent: Tue Jun 16 08:44:28 2009
> Subject: Re: data.gov.* memo
> Awhile ago, when some of the bills were starting to be introduced in  
> XML, the Congress decided to add in some Dublin Core metadata so  
> that issues such as rights would be made clear. See below.
>
> And then there is the presumption that anyone or organization that  
> publishes raw data in an open and without real applications is  
> intending for the data to be either used in place or copied. This is  
> like having an RSS newsfeed and then claiming that the RSS newsfeed  
> itself is copyrighted.
>
> And then there is the issue of how data is used on the Internet with  
> search engines essentially having a complete copy of almost  
> everything internally in order to allow for search.   Hmmmmmm.
>
> <metadata xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/element> <dc:publisher>U.S. House of Representatives</dc:publisher>
> <dc:date>2009-01-06</dc:date>
> <dc:format>text/xml</dc:format>
> <dc:language>EN</dc:language>
> <dc:rights>Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States  
> Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the  
> public domain.</dc:rights>
> </dublinCore>
> </metadata>
>  Daniel
>
>
>
> Jonathan Gray wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Acar,  
> Suzanne<Suzanne.Acar@ic.fbi.gov> wrote:
>
> US data.gov published a policy statement on the site.  Copyright  
> statement was not needed because government data once released for  
> sharing is public domain.
>
>
> While this is true for US Federal government material - this is
> unfortunately not so clear outside the US.
>
> In my experience of looking at the situation with data across Europe,
> many government sites do not explicitly state what can and can't be
> re-used. The EU PSI Directive broadly encourages member states to make
> material available for re-use - but this is still being implemented,
> and some feel there is ambiguity about its scope and strength. Also
> its always helpful to know where rights are held by third parties!
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 18:53:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 16 June 2009 18:53:45 GMT